Where Does Djokovic's 2015 Season Stand In History?

[Carol]

^ Steroids cause baldness (it's no coincidence tons of bodybuilders and power lifters have no hair) but HGH doesn't. Most baseball players and athletes in general on PEDs these days are likely using HGH instead as it gives the massive strength increases without you ending up looking like Kojak.

Really? then read this.......and they don't look muscular, they look FAT!

http://www.complex.com/sports/2012/07/the-25-best-alleged-and-confirmed-steroid-users-in-baseball-history/

 

[Front242]

^ Steroids cause baldness (it's no coincidence tons of bodybuilders and power lifters have no hair) but HGH doesn't. Most baseball players and athletes in general on PEDs these days are likely using HGH instead as it gives the massive strength increases without you ending up looking like Kojak.

Really? then read this.......and they don't look muscular, they look FAT!

http://www.complex.com/sports/2012/07/the-25-best-alleged-and-confirmed-steroid-users-in-baseball-history/

Can't say I'd call any of them fat really although it's a well known fact that HGH in large doses causes palumboism where the stomach organs grow to such an extent it gives you a big protruding pregnant belly. These days bodybuilders use HGH as well as steroids and they look like complete sh1t compared to the guys in the steroid only era who didn't have the pregnant bellies to go with the muscles. Phil Heath's belly is ridiculous and there's no way he should have won Olympia more than once. Watch some videos about palumboism on Youtube. It's gross. Bodybuilders with massive bellies. The term palumboism was named after bodybuilder Dave Palumbo who had a really bad case of HGH gut so they named the condition after him. Again check out some videos. He went from being a regular bodybuilder in good shape to bloated old dude with a pregnant belly. Pretty terrible what drugs do to people these days.

 

[Mile]

Roddick was not a great player. Not in his prime. Not in his dreams. In your dreams, maybe... :laydownlaughing

Roddick is the other Muzzard, just better one.

 

[Kirijax]

Roddick was not a great player. Not in his prime. Not in his dreams. In your dreams, maybe... :laydownlaughing

Roddick is the other Muzzard, just better one.

It's amazing that some people think Roddick was better than Murray. Not by a long shot.

 

[Front242]

Roddick was not a great player. Not in his prime. Not in his dreams. In your dreams, maybe... :laydownlaughing

Roddick is the other Muzzard, just better one.

It's amazing that some people think Roddick was better than Murray. Not by a long shot.

Have to disagree there. Murray wasn't going to beat Federer at Wimbledon and neither was Roddick but Roddick reached 3 Wimbledon finals, beating Murray en route to the one in 2009. Any other opponent would've lost to Roddick at Wimbledon in his prime as his forehand and serve were deadly on grass.

Actually Roddick played so well in the 2009 final I wish they could've had 2 trophies that day. It only came down to fitness in the end and he was a botched volley away from a 2 sets to 1 lead. Murray has never been in a 5th set against Federer in Wimbledon let alone taking it to 16-14. There's no question who the better player on grass was between Murray and Roddick. Ah but Murray won it some will say, to which I'll save you the bother now. He didn't play Roger Federer in his prime to win it.

 

[Front242]

He also made world number 1. Something I doubt Murray will ever achieve.

 

[Kirijax]

Roddick is the other Muzzard, just better one.

It's amazing that some people think Roddick was better than Murray. Not by a long shot.

Have to disagree there. Murray wasn't going to beat Federer at Wimbledon and neither was Roddick but Roddick reached 3 Wimbledon finals, beating Murray en route to the one in 2009. Any other opponent would've lost to Roddick at Wimbledon in his prime as his forehand and serve were deadly on grass.

Murray leads the H2H 8-3. They met twice in Slams, both times at Wimbledon and split. Roddick only had Wimbledon going for him but he still only has one more final than Murray. And that No. 1 ranking. Roddick was very very lucky to squeeze in a few weeks in between Hewitt and Federer before Federer left him in the dust. Murray has already passed him in titles, Masters, Slam finals, etc. The only thing Roddick has going for him is that well-timed No. 1 ranking. Yeah, we're definitely gonna have to disagree with this one if you're going to stick with Roddick.

 

[Front242]

No problem but I'm hardly the only one who will claim Roddick was better. As I said, any other opponent in the finals at Wimbledon and Roddick would have 3 more slams. There's no shame losing to Federer at Wimbledon. Much better forehand in his prime, much better serve. Winning h2h over Djokovic. He was only made to look second rate to one guy really, Roger Federer. The others got their wins over him mostly when he had already significantly declined and his forehand was nothing like it once was (same as Federer's forehand is largely a weak shot now) and his movement was hampered by injuries.

 

[dante1976]

However you want to put it it just doesn't work Nalbandian, Baghdatis, Gonzales, Philippoussis, Roddick, Blake, etc just don't go into "same basket" as Andy (yeah even if he lose xx more finals), Rafa (yeah even if he is in wheelchair), Fed (yeah even if he is 45), Wawrinka (yeah even if he can only play 1-2 tournaments a year well).

Don't trash Djoko's dominance 'cause Djoko raised himself (his game, fitness, diet, everything he needed to) to beat "other big 3" over 20 times each and to go from "one slam wonder/big finals loser" (in 2010) to ATG in "just" 5 years Those earlier mentioned guys from "Feds era" didn't (yeah they played some good matches/tournaments here and there, but still...). No one for example played like Wawrinka did in this years FO final 'cause Fed was that good??? Yeah ofc but also 'cause that guys wasn't good like Djoko's competition
I know his game looks "robotic/uninteresting" but everyone who played tennis (even just on amateur lvl) knows how hard is to play like that (shot placement, redirection of ball, return, court coverage... to name a "few things" that Djoko does probably better than anyone else in tennis history).

 

[nehmeth]

I know his game looks "robotic/uninteresting" but everyone who played tennis (even just on amateur lvl) knows how hard is to play like that (shot placement, redirection of ball, return, court coverage... to name a "few things" that Djoko does probably better than anyone else in tennis history).

Even though he can place the ball on a line over and over again, it is anything but robotic and uninteresting.

I've never seen a robot who can twist and stretch like Gumby. :nono

 

[El Dude]

This old discussion again? Anyhow, I'll split the difference a bit. Of the two generations, Roger's (b. 1979-83) and Nadal's/Djokovic's (1984-88), the four overall greatest players are Roger, Novak, Rafa, and Andy - so clearly the top tier talent is better in the younger generation. But after that I think you have a group of Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt who were all lesser players than Murray* but better than anyone else in the recent generation, with a third group that includes a mixture of both (Ferrer, Ferrero, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Wawrinka, del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga).

(*Actually, Safin at his best was better than Murray I think, but less consistent)

As for the two Andys, one thing that they have in common is that their Slam records were most severely impacted by Roger Federer: Roddick was 0-4 against Roger in finals, Murray 0-3. Both are more similar to Vilas or Courier in terms of how many Slams they "should" have had, yet on the other hand it wasn't like Vilas and Courier played against weak competition to get their Slams. Connors and Borg were at their peak when Vilas won his, and you still have a strong Edberg, Becker, and Lendl, plus a rising Agassi and Sampras to contend with for Courier. Neither Roddick or Murray had that extra something to push them through in some of those Slam finals, so we are left with Slam final records like so:

Roddick: 1-4
Murray: 2-6

Compared to:

Vilas: 4-4
Courier: 4-3

All that said, I do think Murray is the overall better player. Roddick might have been better on grass, but Murray was/is better on clay and probably better on hards, or at least slow hards.

 

[amicitia81]

Career match record of Novak Djokovic , number 1 ATP Ranking and one of the best all time in
www.thetennisbase.com/?enlace=playern&player1=DJOKOVIC,%20NOVAK&sub=2#aSubmenu
[attachment=175]

 

[amicitia81]

"2015: The climax of Novak Djokovic". An article summarizing the season of the Serbian, the Big-4 and the future promises of world tennis by thetennisbase. www.thetennisbase.com/?enlace=noticias&accion=detalle&codigo=1051

 

[isabelle]

Roddick was not a great player. Not in his prime. Not in his dreams. In your dreams, maybe... :laydownlaughing

Roddick is the other Muzzard, just better one.

Roddick has no gold medal and no Wimbly trophy

 

[nehmeth]

Roddick was not a great player. Not in his prime. Not in his dreams. In your dreams, maybe... :laydownlaughing

Roddick is the other Muzzard, just better one.

Roddick has no gold medal and no Wimbly trophy

Roddick was #1 in the world and ended his career with 32 titles and an overall winning percentage of 74% (Murray's so far is 77%). Murray has never been #1, but I believe he's been in the top 4/5 longer than Roddick. He already has 35 titles and 2 Slams (to Roddick's lone USO win). Neither are great players, but I would give Murray the nod for the stronger resume.

 

[El Dude]

Roddick is a bit underrated, both because he won only a single Slam but also because he had notable flaws in his game. But he was still a very, very good player - one of the best single Slam winners in the Open Era and better than some multi-Slam winners (e.g. at least Kriek and Bruguera).

That said, Murray is better. Not by a massive amount, but by a significant amount. Roddick was #1 at the very end of an era (98-03) when the #1 was tossed around like a hot potato. Murray hasn't been #1 because he's always played when Roger, Rafa, and Novak have been at their peaks. Its a case of "Vilas Syndrome." But I think Andy belongs more in the Vilas/Courier/Ashe group than he does in the other two-Slam winners. If he wins another Slam or two, I think he'll have to be considered the greatest player below the 6+ Slam winners.

 

[mrzz]

Well, surely Murray is more complete, and may give us a better show. And also surely have a better resume...

...but in an hypothetical slam final between the two, both in their primes, I would put my money on Roddick no doubt, and I would guess that most people would too.

 

[Front242]

Roddick was not a great player. Not in his prime. Not in his dreams. In your dreams, maybe... :laydownlaughing

Roddick is the other Muzzard, just better one.

Roddick has no gold medal and no Wimbly trophy

Andy Murray played a very fatigued over the hill Federer in the Olympic final who had just beaten Del Potro 19-17 in the 3rd set of their semi and a very subpar Djokovic in the Wimbledon final he won. Incidentally both cases resulted in Del Potro seriously impacting the final as the semi against Del Potro at Wimbledon took a lot out of Djokovic both mentally and physically as well.

Compare that to Roddick losing to Djokovic in the 2012 Olympics when he was well outside his prime and a few months from retirement, and well, guess who he lost to in the Wimbledon finals 3 times? Could it be the guy who holds the joint record along with Sampras at 7 Wimbledon titles? Yes it could and there's absolutely no shame in that whatsoever and Andy Murray never ever faced Roger Federer in his prime at Wimbledon and lost to him even when Federer was 1 month from his 31st birthday and this year 1 month from being 34. You can imagine the scoreline if Federer was still in his prime.

There really are no parallels whatsoever except that Djokovic beat Roddick at the Olympics just a few months before he retired and was a mere shell of his former self (he retired with a winning h2h after all) and likely would've beaten Djokovic when he (Roddick) was in his prime as he was the 2nd best grass court player after Federer during his prime. Likewise Murray beat a physically and emotionally drained Federer in their Olympic final and never had to face prime Federer on grass and lost to him in the matches they played after Roger was years outside his prime. It's pretty obvious why Roddick has no Olympic medal or Wimbledon titles.

 

[Great Hands]

Well, surely Murray is more complete, and may give us a better show. And also surely have a better resume...

...but in an hypothetical slam final between the two, both in their primes, I would put my money on Roddick no doubt, and I would guess that most people would too.

Oooh, I'm not sure about that. On grass, maybe, but on clay, or slower hards? Murray would frustrate Roddick by getting all his balls back until he missed - he was nowhere near as solid from the baseline as Murray is. And Murray would have a field day passing him if he tried to net rush. Murray has a big first serve too, and Roddick was not the best returner. And Murray is one of the best players in history at getting big serves like Roddick's back into play.

And if you are limiting it to a 'slam final' because you think Roddick could cope with the pressure of that better, well...Roddick won one slam where he beat the legend of hard court tennis and the all-time great that is Juan Carlos Ferrero (!), and the one other time he got close to winning a slam final - multiple set points to go up 2 sets to love in the WD09 final - he choked really badly, missed an absolute sitter of a volley, and then lost the tiebreak. So I don't see that there is any evidence that he is mentally stronger than Murray either.

 

[Great Hands]

Roddick is the other Muzzard, just better one.

Roddick has no gold medal and no Wimbly trophy

Andy Murray played a very fatigued over the hill Federer in the Olympic final who had just beaten Del Potro 19-17 in the 3rd set of their semi and a very subpar Djokovic in the Wimbledon final he won. Incidentally both cases resulted in Del Potro seriously impacting the final as the semi against Del Potro at Wimbledon took a lot out of Djokovic both mentally and physically as well.

Compare that to Roddick losing to Djokovic in the 2012 Olympics when he was well outside his prime and a few months from retirement, and well, guess who he lost to in the Wimbledon finals 3 times? Could it be the guy who holds the joint record along with Sampras at 7 Wimbledon titles? Yes it could and there's absolutely no shame in that whatsoever and Andy Murray never ever faced Roger Federer in his prime at Wimbledon and lost to him even when Federer was 1 month from his 31st birthday and this year 1 month from being 34. You can imagine the scoreline if Federer was still in his prime.

There really are no parallels whatsoever except that Djokovic beat Roddick at the Olympics just a few months before he retired and was a mere shell of his former self (he retired with a winning h2h after all) and likely would've beaten Djokovic when he (Roddick) was in his prime as he was the 2nd best grass court player after Federer during his prime. Likewise Murray beat a physically and emotionally drained Federer in their Olympic final and never had to face prime Federer on grass and lost to him in the matches they played after Roger was years outside his prime. It's pretty obvious why Roddick has no Olympic medal or Wimbledon titles.

i agree with much of what you say, but not this bit;

Andy Murray never ever faced Roger Federer in his prime at Wimbledon and lost to him even when Federer was 1 month from his 31st birthday and this year 1 month from being 34. You can imagine the scoreline if Federer was still in his prime.

in the wd f 12, andy was actualyl outplaying fed until he started to play abosltuely sblime tennis at the end of set 2, which was up there with anything in his prime.

And roger played mazingly well in that sf this year. he served better than in his prime. in fact, statistically this is roger's 'prime', srvvign wise. so andy just cldn't get into hsi sercice games. and roger's bh tht day was well abov average for his prime too.